Skip to comments.Romney Was Right, So?
Posted on 09/23/2012 12:02:18 PM PDT by drewh
In life, there are groups of self-made winners and groups of self-made losers. When picked upon by the winners, the losers, often at a loss as to know how to defend their indefensible choices simply answer, "so?"
Which brings us to the question: How do you explain that about half the country says they are prepared to settle for re-electing a proven loser?
They support him because if a winner were to win the White House, say the next Teddy Roosevelt, it would surely upset the status quo-including removing fatalism as a defense for not trying. It would mean change-real change. And change upsets people. The very idea of it upsets them more than the abstract, but very real, treasury figures showing the onrush of tsunami size debt and default with no high ground to retreat to.
Electing a winner would mean that value producing, competitive private sector jobs would become available, and that personal accountability might become fashionable again.
But there is more to it than that. There is the post-1960s Hollywood anti-hero; the narrow kind of personality who is seen as a victim fighting against a world out to get him. In this fashion, about half the country identifies with Obama, a put-upon guy trying to do the best he can in a world full of monster Republicans.
Obama, who has played people for suckers all his life, built his campaign on this image to cover his losing record:
George Bush is responsible for all the problems I can't solve. The Republicans won't let me do what I need to do to change the country Mitt Romney (who created more permanent private sector jobs than Obama's trillion dollar stimulus) fired people. Do we want a President who actually fired people?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Well, sort of... We want a President who WILL fire LOTS of people.
who is the creep named judy miller that is now on FOX..
That “47 % who don’t pay taxes “ was always a lame-brained theme to honk on; I don’t know why the talk radio hosts who harped on it were so tone deaf for months, especially as I’m sure many people in that demographic are in their audiences.(Most people who pay taxes are working during the hours that talk radio covers the dial.) I suspect it was probably personal reaction to their own high tax rates,but it set the stage for Romney to fall into that formulation when talking at a fundraiser. It was poorly formulated short-hand for a constellation of attributes of dependency and missed the mark. There are plenty of people in the 53% who do pay taxes that have an even more distorted view of government—e.g. public employees, trial lawyers, crone capitalists, etc. , etc.— as a cash cow. Romney ought to step back from it as completely and charmingly as he can, as with a commercial of him standing with senior citizens, etc, who support him and all but saying he’s sorry for the way he came across. Great time to draw the contrast with Jon Corzine, too, as somebody who embodies all of the “compassion” the Democrats have for the citizenry.
Is she the Judith miller, former NYT reporter who wento jail for refusing to reveal sources in the Scooter Libby probe?
Romney didn’t have any idea of what he was saying, that is why so much energy is being expended to explain it and defend it, and so many conflicting and contradictory explanations exist and are being promoted.
The 53% of America that voted for Obama did not consist of some neatly packaged ‘other’, or ‘they’.
Obama easily won the $200,000 income and above, by a 52 to 46 margin!
Obama lost the $50,000-$75,000 income group by a single point!
Obama won the $75,000 to $100,000 income group by a solid 51 to 48 margin.
Obama lost hugely from those 65 and older all of them collecting SS, and tons of them not owing taxes. They were the ONLY age group that voted against Obama.
There is no neat little package of 47% of Americans for a President to write off because they dont vote for him.
yes and she is very wishy washy about conservative policy
but likes hammering Romney..never mentions Obama.
Many of those who cast a ballot for Obama were voting against the really horrible Republican nominee, and didn't realize how evil and dangerous Obama was. Those people might reasonably be persuaded to vote against Obama this time around. There are, however, a significant fraction of voters who view their own wealth outlook as being purely a function of how much money the government gives them. Nothing that any Republican could possibly say is apt to win votes from such people, and no good can come of appeasing them.
Yet Romney was even worse, and came in third in 2008.
Romney’s list of Americans that he has denigrated and insulted is almost total, but there is no nicely packaged 47% for the ignorant fool to attack, he is clueless.
That's true, but in his favor I don't think he's seen quite so much as someone was given the nomination on account of seniority (as was the case with John McCain, and with Bob Dole before him). Further, I think there was a certain amount of anti-incumbent feeling in 2008, and an even greater extent this year. I agree there's a lot to worry about, since I've never seen Mitt Romney trying to hammer the point that leftist programs aren't just "too expensive"--they are counterproductive to their stated aims (as to whether they're counterproductive to their actual aims, that's another story). He needs to point out that while Obama's claim that he'll make doctors "more productive" may sound like a good thing, what it really means is that doctors will be seeing more patients and spending less time with each one. The amount of medical care people can "afford" cannot exceed the amount which is provided, and policies which drive doctors and prospective doctors away from the profession will decrease, rather than increase, the amount of care available. If the amount of care available is at best fixed, any policy which makes care "affordable" to someone for whom it would otherwise not be, will necessarily make someone else unable to afford care they would otherwise have been able to afford.
Yes, Romney is seen exactly that way, no one was going to be able to get anyone else past the left wing of the GOP, they had wanted Romney for many years.